Interesting Public Land Language from the Cam and Dana

Wes Siler of Outside Magazine recently wrote and article calling out the NRA for supporting public land transfer advocates like Mike Lee. Of course the response was swift, but most interesting was the language that Dana and Cam used like "Federal land grabs" "give land back to the states".

The question is, are Dana and Cam misinformed or intentional in their choice of language?

https://www.outsideonline.com/2332056/nra-lying-you

The end of his rebuttal, final three paragraphs, was for me the crux of the problem. If we can't even agree on the most basics of facts how can we ever win this war in favor of public lands? I mean they're blatantly lying, completely ignoring what the author actually said, and few of their viewers will ever know.

jryoung said:

The question is, are Dana and Cam misinformed or intentional in their choice of language?

Click to expand...

That is a great question.

As someone who has worked in multiple state legislatures, at the congressional level and the executive level on hunting and angling issues, the NRA rarely shows up to advocate one way or another. In my 5 session lobbying in MT, they've been around twice on wildlife related issues: one to help shut down a ban on grouse hunting, and another to push cookie cutter legislation that was unneeded as it relates to the right to hunt and fish.

Other than that, they showed up once in Wyoming to call Bowhunters of Wyoming an anti-firearms hunting group (I shit you not) who were trying to erode your right to carry an AR during archery seasons, you know, in case woofs or bears or something attacks you.

Meanwhile, they fund campaigns against legislators who work with us on public lands and wildlife, prop up people like Rob Bishop, etc, and have the audacity to call people who don't fit in their narrow little world view anti-hunting.

The NRA can pound sand.